CAT/OP/KAZ/1
difficult for the Subcommittee to assess objectively the current situation in places of
deprivation of liberty.
II. Reprisals
11.
The Subcommittee is concerned about the possibility of reprisals against persons
interviewed during the visit. It wishes to emphasize that any form of intimidation or
reprisals against persons deprived of their liberty constitutes a violation of the State party’s
obligation to cooperate with the Subcommittee under the Optional Protocol. In accordance
with article 15 of the Optional Protocol, the Subcommittee urges the authorities to ensure
that there are no reprisals following the Subcommittee’s visit. It wishes to draw the
attention of the authorities to the Subcommittee’s policy on reprisals in relation to its
visiting mandate (CAT/OP/6/Rev.1).
12.
The Subcommittee reiterates the recommendations made in connection with its
preliminary observations and stresses that those persons who provide information to
or cooperate with national or international agencies or institutions should not be
punished or otherwise penalized for having done so. The Subcommittee requests the
State party to provide in its reply detailed information on what it has done to prevent
the possibility of reprisals against anyone who was visited by, met with or provided
information to the Subcommittee during the course of the delegation’s visit, as well as
information on measures taken to act upon such allegations.
III. Implementation of the Optional Protocol: the national
preventive mechanism
13.
Kazakhstan ratified the Optional Protocol in 2008; however, it made a declaration
under article 24, which allowed for the postponement of the national preventive mechanism
designation for three years. In 2013 the Law on the amendments and additions to certain
legislative acts of Kazakhstan on the establishment of a national preventive mechanism was
adopted. According to an official notification letter, dated 5 January 2015, from the
Commissioner for Human Rights addressed to the Subcommittee, the first monitoring visits
under the mandate of the national preventive mechanism were conducted in 2014.
14.
The national preventive mechanism of Kazakhstan is a two-tier body, based on the
“ombudsman plus” model. The office of the Commissioner for Human Rights, which the
Government designated as the national preventive mechanism, was established pursuant to
presidential decree No. 947 of 19 September 2002. In accordance with article 8 of the
statute established under the decree, the Commissioner is appointed and can be removed by
the President. The Coordinating Council, established under the auspices of the
Commissioner, is in charge of the overall functioning of the national preventive mechanism.
One of its key responsibilities is to select the members of the mechanism, who carry out
visits to places of deprivation of liberty. In December 2015, pursuant to a decision of the
Coordinating Council, new members of the mechanism were elected for 2016. 1 The
members of the mechanism are elected for a period of one year, 2 which may have a
negative impact on the continuity and institutional capacity of the mechanism.
15.
The Subcommittee observes that the authorities, rather than adopting a separate law
on the national preventive mechanism, amended about 16 legislative acts, which makes it
difficult to ascertain the precise remit of the mechanism’s mandate.
16.
The Subcommittee welcomes the establishment of the national preventive
mechanism and commends the participation of civil society organizations in the mechanism.
It is of the view, however, that the fact that the President of Kazakhstan appoints the
1
2
4
National Preventive Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture, “Consolidated report of the national
preventive mechanism members on the preventive visits carried out in 2015 (annual report)”.
Order of the Human Rights Commissioner No. 8893 of 8 November 2013.